Commentator, friend, and former roommate, Peter, has been savaging me in the comments section for pooping on Chomsky. In order to placate him, let me say that this post seems to me a perfectly cogent analysis of the situation in Iraq. The only quibble I have is that Chomsky appears to think that a full-scale civil war is less probable than I do. I reproduce the entire post below the fold. Let the Chomsky-lovin' begin.
For what it's worth, polls in Iraq reveal very considerable and apparently growing support for withdrawal of the US occupying army, apart from the Kurdish regions.There, now the anti-Chomsky forces can flay me in the comments section. Posted by Chris at July 29, 2004 12:37 PMThat doesn't mean withdrawal tomorrow. No one is talking about that, and it isn't even technically feasible. But expeditious withdrawal, with a clear deadline, and an authentic rather than merely nominal transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis. That isn't in the cards, but not because of concerns that the region will be left in chaos; rather, because it would mean abandoning the primary and quite crucial war aim of establishing the first stable military bases in a dependent client state at the heart of the energy-producing regions, a major lever of world control, as has long been understood. The US isn't about to do that.
There are other reasons. An independent Iraq would probably take steps to gain a leading position in the Arab world, which would mean confronting the main enemy, US-backed Israel. hat would mean rearming, probably with WMD, to counter Israel's. It might also lead to improving relations with Iran. Not impossible is a Shi'ite alliance with Iran and a majority-run Iraq, which might further stimulate moves towards independence in the nearby Shi'te areas of Saudi Arabia, where the oil is. That would lead to domination of the world's energy resources by an independent Shi'ite alliance. Nothing inevitable about any of this of course, but hardly impossible. Can you imagine
the US tolerating anything like this? These are among the reasons why permitting democracy in Iraq, even if the rhetoric were meant seriously by Washington and Western commentators, is hardly a likely prospect.Suppose that internal pressures in the US, and whatever pressures exist elsewhere, led to abandonment of the major war aims, so that there could be plans for expeditious withdrawal of the occupying army and transfer of authentic sovereignty. Would that lead to chaos in the region? Or would it reduce tensions and conflicts in the region? We cannot say much with confidence, of course, any more than
we could have said anything with confidence about withdrawal of Japanese armies from much of Asia in the early 1940s, or of Russian forces from Afghanistan, and many other cases. But that lack of confidence is not much of an argument for military occupation.
I too have been giving some serious thought to the extrication of America from Iraq.
It msut be done, but it's not going to be easy and there could be some very adverse consequences. You mentioned civil war, but that implies many things.
For instance, it could mean more than doubling of world oil prices, just like 1978-1981 during the Iranian revolution.
And we shouldn't altogether dismiss the "failed state" argument. As I blogged, imagine Afghanistan with better infrastructure and technicians.
Posted by: Rodger at July 29, 2004 02:05 PMYes, I think that it's a tricky question, and its undeniable that the U.S. will play some stabalizing role in Iraq over the next while. The problem, though, is that they will also play a destabalizing role in Iraq over the same period. In the long term, I've got my money on a worse net effect with the US there than not.
And I continue to believe that the US desire for long term bases is the root of much evil in Iraq's future. That desire has continually gotten in the way of the good that the US might have done, and I see no reason why that will change.
Posted by: Chris at July 29, 2004 03:34 PMwell, thank you chris for presenting a balanced view of chomsky. and kudos to the vigilante justice of this "peter" fellow. he certainly sounds like a credible fellow.
Posted by: Kegri at July 29, 2004 10:37 PMI was in complete agreement until the last sentence gave me a big "hwaaaah?". We don't know what will happen so we should just drop everything and get out? Did I miss something in there?
Posted by: chefyamabushi at July 30, 2004 12:57 AMI think one fact that Chomsky doesn't raise - and I haven't seen it raised in many other places either - is that the US has swapped military bases in Saudi Arabia for ones in Iraq. Those troops are intended to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and it's probably fair to argue that securing acceptance of this by the Iraqis by whatever means is Allawi's main task as far as the US is concerned.
Posted by: jamie at July 30, 2004 10:55 AMChefyamabushi,
'But that lack of confidence is not much of an argument for military occupation.'
I don't think Chomsky is suggesting a 'drop everything and get out' policy. Ideally, he is hoping for an organized withdrawal that will address both Iraq's right to genuine sovereignty and the need to keep civil disorder at bay.
Chomsky feels that ignorance about the exact nature of a post-US Iraq is not a motivation for the US to stay in Baghdad. You seem to disagree. But if the occupation is both very immoral and having enormous negative consequences on the Iraqi people than ignorance of the future hardly justifies continuing with the status quo.
Peter,
With that clarification, I wholeheartedly agree. I sincerely hope that there will be a way to extricate ourselves from there without further alienating both our allies, professed enemies, and casual (and justifiably nervous) observers. I certainly don't see the value of struggling to maintain a high risk presence there for any purpose other than to assure that Iraq's new government does not wind up looking like Iran's (or Afghanistan... the so-called "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" seems to have been conveniently forgotten. Rrrrgh.)
Posted by: chefyamabushi at July 30, 2004 10:59 PM